5 ms·

My personal experience with consuming content on Substack is that it’s been mostly fringe opinion content with a biased agenda. For someone like me that feels

by awb 5y ago

My personal experience with consuming content on Substack is that it’s been mostly fringe opinion content with a biased agenda. For someone like me that feels wary every time I see a Substack URL, are there some quality independent journalists covering current events that don’t participate in conspiracy theories and partisan echo chambers that I can discover?

klelatti 5y ago
Adam Tooze is a history professor at Columbia University so definitely doesn't participate in conspiracy theories. His writing is mostly on current affairs but with history as context. I don't agree with 100% of what he writes but it is always stimulating and challenging. Very strongly recommended. https://adamtooze.substack.com https://adamtooze.substack.com
gonehome 5y ago
Yascha Mounk and Persuasion is really great. I tend to like writers that have more of a scout mindset. Bari Weiss’ Common Sense, Scott Alexander (the comments here trashing him are wrong, easy to tell by reading him), The Diff by Byrne Hobart is one of the best finance blogs online, Noahpinion by Noah Smith, Zvi Mowshowitz has had good writing about Covid. Andrew Sullivan’s the weekly dish has different politics than I do, but he’s also a good writer with a scout mindset imo. Outside of substack, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Sam Harris, Ben Thompson of Stratechery, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Julia Galef are all great. Sam Harris in particular is a really good, smart, interviewer.
internet_jockey 5y ago
There's a giant universe of voices on Substack and I'm sure you'll find many who fit that description. A couple of ways to do so: Peruse the leaderboards at substack.com and in the new app (in the Discover tab). Check out the profiles of the writers and readers you most respect (just click on their faces). You'll find lists of Substacks they're subscribed to, which may lead you to some interesting places and new writers to respect.
logic_beats_pro 5y ago
Yes: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Dr. Robert Malone is not a journalist but a scientist. The analysis of recent medical studies shunned by the mainstream media is worth the time investment.
- awb 5y ago
  Greenwald and Taibbi are great examples of writers I see producing ideological opinion pieces that I don’t find useful, but are promoted and prevalent on Substack. I’m trying to get away from folks that make broad, sweeping judgements without much data / firsthand knowledge or dangle open ended conspiracy theory questions about subjects they have little to no expertise in.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    +1 yeah greenwald would be someone I’d pick as an example of a bad substack in the class you were describing.
  - samglover97 5y ago
    I don't do that much on current events anymore but you might find my substack interesting: https://atis.substack.com https://atis.substack.com
throwaway_4ever 5y ago
astralcodexten.substack.com isn’t a journalist (he’s a psychiatrist) but covers current events quite well, probably has as little bias as you can as a person, and is popular on HN.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > probably has as little bias as you can as a person Yesterday he wrote an article about being “anti-woke” on a college campus. It included recommendations such as what he called the “berserker strategy” which was to pick as many fights as possible on every social justice topic. Scott is anything but unbiased. He writes with flowery language that elicits a sense of faux humbleness and “both sides” journalism while subtlety pushing the reader to his desired conclusions on things like race and IQ. He’s famous for leaked e-mails where he admitted writing a lot about neoreactionaries because it gets more clicks, which has made him somewhat of a hero among those circles. He also admitted that he believes in “HBD” which is an alt-right euphemism for racist views on IQ. He may feel unbiased and objective due to his writing style, but he’s far from it if you’ve been following him and reading closely.
  - jfiowejf 5y ago
    > subtlety pushing the reader to his desired conclusions on things like race and IQ. Pushing people towards believing the truth? The horror!
  - holbrad 5y ago
    "He also admitted that he believes in “HBD” which is an alt-right euphemism for racist views on IQ." Good to see an unbiased take such as this. Let's look up what that means. First hit on google: "HBD IQ" (For me)(https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jttfuxoQpYsnNEAqG/suppose-hbd-is-true https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jttfuxoQpYsnNEAqG/suppose-hb...) "Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population" I mean I'm sure racists love the idea, but it doesn't exactly strike me as obviously 100% untrue.

by awb 5y ago

klelatti 5y ago

Adam Tooze is a history professor at Columbia University so definitely doesn't participate in conspiracy theories. His writing is mostly on current affairs but with history as context. I don't agree with 100% of what he writes but it is always stimulating and challenging. Very strongly recommended. https://adamtooze.substack.com https://adamtooze.substack.com

gonehome 5y ago

Yascha Mounk and Persuasion is really great. I tend to like writers that have more of a scout mindset. Bari Weiss’ Common Sense, Scott Alexander (the comments here trashing him are wrong, easy to tell by reading him), The Diff by Byrne Hobart is one of the best finance blogs online, Noahpinion by Noah Smith, Zvi Mowshowitz has had good writing about Covid. Andrew Sullivan’s the weekly dish has different politics than I do, but he’s also a good writer with a scout mindset imo. Outside of substack, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Sam Harris, Ben Thompson of Stratechery, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Julia Galef are all great. Sam Harris in particular is a really good, smart, interviewer.

internet_jockey 5y ago

There's a giant universe of voices on Substack and I'm sure you'll find many who fit that description. A couple of ways to do so: Peruse the leaderboards at substack.com and in the new app (in the Discover tab). Check out the profiles of the writers and readers you most respect (just click on their faces). You'll find lists of Substacks they're subscribed to, which may lead you to some interesting places and new writers to respect.

logic_beats_pro 5y ago

Yes: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Dr. Robert Malone is not a journalist but a scientist. The analysis of recent medical studies shunned by the mainstream media is worth the time investment.

awb 5y ago
Greenwald and Taibbi are great examples of writers I see producing ideological opinion pieces that I don’t find useful, but are promoted and prevalent on Substack. I’m trying to get away from folks that make broad, sweeping judgements without much data / firsthand knowledge or dangle open ended conspiracy theory questions about subjects they have little to no expertise in.
- gonehome 5y ago
  +1 yeah greenwald would be someone I’d pick as an example of a bad substack in the class you were describing.
- samglover97 5y ago
  I don't do that much on current events anymore but you might find my substack interesting: https://atis.substack.com https://atis.substack.com

throwaway_4ever 5y ago

astralcodexten.substack.com isn’t a journalist (he’s a psychiatrist) but covers current events quite well, probably has as little bias as you can as a person, and is popular on HN.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> probably has as little bias as you can as a person Yesterday he wrote an article about being “anti-woke” on a college campus. It included recommendations such as what he called the “berserker strategy” which was to pick as many fights as possible on every social justice topic. Scott is anything but unbiased. He writes with flowery language that elicits a sense of faux humbleness and “both sides” journalism while subtlety pushing the reader to his desired conclusions on things like race and IQ. He’s famous for leaked e-mails where he admitted writing a lot about neoreactionaries because it gets more clicks, which has made him somewhat of a hero among those circles. He also admitted that he believes in “HBD” which is an alt-right euphemism for racist views on IQ. He may feel unbiased and objective due to his writing style, but he’s far from it if you’ve been following him and reading closely.
- jfiowejf 5y ago
  > subtlety pushing the reader to his desired conclusions on things like race and IQ. Pushing people towards believing the truth? The horror!
- holbrad 5y ago
  "He also admitted that he believes in “HBD” which is an alt-right euphemism for racist views on IQ." Good to see an unbiased take such as this. Let's look up what that means. First hit on google: "HBD IQ" (For me)(https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jttfuxoQpYsnNEAqG/suppose-hbd-is-true https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jttfuxoQpYsnNEAqG/suppose-hb...) "Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population" I mean I'm sure racists love the idea, but it doesn't exactly strike me as obviously 100% untrue.